Rates of price disclosure associated with the surgical treatment of early-stage breast cancer one year after implementation of federal regulations.

PURPOSE: Mastectomy, breast reconstruction (BR) and breast conserving therapy (BCT) are core components of the treatment paradigm for early-stage disease but are differentially associated with significant financial burdens. Given recent price transparency regulations, we sought to characterize rates of disclosure for breast cancer-related surgery, including mastectomy, BCT, and BR (oncoplastic reconstruction, implant, pedicled flap and free flap) and identify associated factors. METHODS: For this cross-sectional analysis, cost reports were obtained from the Turquoise Health price transparency platform for all U.S. hospitals meeting national accreditation standards for breast cancer care. The Healthcare Cost Report Information System was used to collect facility-specific data. Addresses were geocoded to identify hospital referral and census regions while data from CMS was also used to identify the geographic practice cost index. We leveraged a Poisson regression model and relevant Medicare billing codes to analyze factors associated with price disclosure and the availability of an OOP price estimator. RESULTS: Of 447 identified hospitals, 221 (49.4%) disclosed prices for mastectomy and 188 42.1%) disclosed prices for both mastectomy and some form of reconstruction including oncoplastic reduction (n = 184, 97.9%), implants (n = 187, 99.5%), pedicled flaps (n = 89, 47.3%), and free flaps (n = 81, 43.1%). Non-profit status and increased market competition were associated with price nondisclosure. 121 hospitals (27.1%) had an out-of-pocket price estimator that included at least one breast surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Most eligible hospitals did not disclose prices for breast cancer surgery. Distinct hospital characteristics were associated with price disclosure. Breast cancer patients face persistent difficulty in accessing costs.

Post-Mastectomy Tissue Expander Placement Followed by Radiation Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Staged Autologous Versus Implant-Based Unilateral Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is no preferred approach to breast reconstruction for patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) who require post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Staged implant and autologous reconstruction both have unique risks and benefits. No previous study has compared their cost-effectiveness with utility scores. METHODS: A literature review determined the probabilities and outcomes for mastectomy and staged implant or autologous reconstruction. Utility scores were used to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with successful surgery and postoperative complications. Medicare billing codes were used to assess costs. A decision analysis tree was constructed with rollback and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to validate results and account for uncertainty. RESULTS: Mastectomy with staged deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction is costlier ($14,104.80 vs $3216.93), but more effective (QALYs, 29.96 vs 24.87). This resulted in an ICER of 2141.00, favoring autologous reconstruction. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that autologous reconstruction was more cost-effective if less than $257,444.13. Monte Carlo analysis showed a confidence of 99.99% that DIEP flap reconstruction is more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LABC who require PMRT, staged autologous reconstruction is significantly more cost-effective than reconstruction with implants. Despite the decreased morbidity, staged implant reconstruction has greater rates of complication.

Is the Centralization of Complex Surgical Procedures an Unintended Spillover Effect of Global Capitation? - Insights from the Maryland Global Budget Revenue Program.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if global budget revenue (GBR) models incent the centralization of complex surgical care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND: In 2014, Maryland initiated a statewide GBR model. While prior research has shown improvements in cost and outcomes for surgical care post-GBR implementation, the mechanism remains unclear. METHODS: Utilizing state inpatient databases, we compared the proportion of adults undergoing elective complex surgeries (gastrectomy, pneumonectomy/lobectomy, proctectomies, and hip/knee revision) at high-concentration hospitals (HCHs) in Maryland and control states. Annual concentration, per procedure, was defined as hospital volume divided by state volume. HCHs were defined as hospitals with a concentration at least at the 75 th percentile in 2010. We estimated the difference-in-differences (DiD) of the probability of patients undergoing surgery at HCHs before and after GBR implementation. FINDINGS: Our sample included 122,882 surgeries. Following GBR implementation, all procedures were increasingly performed at HCHs in Maryland. States satisfied the parallel trends assumption for the centralization of gastrectomy and pneumonectomy/lobectomy. Post-GBR, patients were more likely to undergo gastrectomy (DiD: 5.5 p.p., 95% CI [2.2, 8.8]) and pneumonectomy/lobectomy (DiD: 12.4 p.p., 95% CI [10.0, 14.8]) at an HCH in Maryland compared with control states. For our hip/knee revision analyses, we assumed persistent counterfactuals and noted a positive DiD post-GBR implementation (DiD: 4.8 p.p., 95% CI [1.3, 8.2]). No conclusion could be drawn for proctectomy due to different pre-GBR trends. CONCLUSIONS: GBR implementation is associated with increased centralization for certain complex surgeries. Future research is needed to explore the impact of centralization on patient experience and access.

Spending and Utilization on Drugs Prescribed by Otolaryngologists to Medicare Beneficiaries, 2013 to 2017.

OBJECTIVES: The significant and rising cost of prescription drugs is a pressing concern for patients and payers. However, little is known about spending on and utilization of drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists. METHODS: Utilizing publicly available Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use data, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 34 small-molecule drugs commonly prescribed by otolaryngologists (defined as 2017 Medicare Part D spending ≥$500 000) to Medicare beneficiaries. Prescription data was characterized by drug type (brand name vs generic). Primary outcomes for each prescription drug included the total annual cost and the total annual number of days supplied. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2017, spending on drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists to Medicare beneficiaries decreased by $32.1 million ($131.7-$99.5 million; relative decrease 24.4%; compound annual growth rate [CAGR] -5.4%), while total utilization increased by 24.9 million days supplied (74.6-99.5 million; relative increase 33.3%; CAGR 5.9%). For brand name drugs, there was a decrease in spending ($71.1-$26.7 million; relative decrease -62.4%; CAGR -17.8%) and utilization (11.2-3.1 million days supplied; relative decrease -72.5%; CAGR -22.8%). In contrast, generic drugs demonstrated increased spending ($60.6-$72.8 million; relative increase 20.2%; CAGR 3.7%) and utilization (63.5-96.4 million days supplied; relative increase 51.9%; CAGR 8.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Spending on drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists to Medicare Part D beneficiaries declined between 2013 and 2017 in part due to a transition from brand name drugs to lower-cost generic equivalents.

Graduate Medical Education in Otolaryngology: Making Dollars and Sense of Reform.

Graduate medical education (GME) is funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through both direct and indirect payments. In recent years, stakeholders have raised concerns about the growth of spending on GME and distribution of payment among hospitals. Key stakeholders have proposed reforms to reduce GME funding such as adjustments to statutory payment formulas and absolute caps on annual payments per resident. Otolaryngology departmental leadership should understand the potential effects of proposed reforms, which could have significant implications for the short-term financial performance and the long-term specialty workforce. Although some hospitals and departments may elect to reduce resident salaries or eliminate positions in the face of GME funding cuts, this approach overlooks the substantial Medicare revenue contributed by resident care and high cost of alternative labor sources. Commitment to resident training is necessary to align both the margin and mission of otolaryngology departments and their sponsoring hospitals.

Wide State-Level Variation In Commercial Health Care Prices Suggests Uneven Impact Of Price Regulation.

Prices charged for health care services in the commercial insurance market are high and vary widely within and between market areas. As a result, prices have been the focus of much policy debate. We extended the literature on commercial prices by examining state-level price variation in the commercial market, relative to Medicare, for a broader set of states and a wider set of services than had been examined. We assessed the potential impact on provider revenue of setting commercial prices at Medicare rates. Consistent with the existing literature, we found that average commercial prices for inpatient and outpatient facility services were about double Medicare fees, while commercial prices for professional services were about 60 percent higher. Finally, average hospital revenue would fall about 35 percent if commercial prices were limited to Medicare rates, but this would vary widely by state. If Medicaid rates were also increased to match Medicare rates, hospital revenue would likely fall by about 30 percent. Given the potentially large impact, policies to address the market failures that lead to high and variable prices in the commercial insurance sector are needed, but they should be structured to avoid the large disruptions that could occur if there were a very rapid transition to Medicare rates in the commercial market.

Comparing Resource Use in Medical Admissions of Children With Complex Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Children with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) utilize a disproportionate share of hospital resources. OBJECTIVE: We asked whether some hospitals display a significantly different pattern of resource utilization than others when caring for similar children with CCCs admitted for medical diagnoses. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using Pediatric Health Information System data from 2009 to 2013, we constructed an inpatient Template of 300 children with CCCs, matching these to 300 patients at each hospital, thereby performing a type of direct standardization. SUBJECTS: Children with CCCs were drawn from a list of the 40 most common medical principal diagnoses, then matched to patients across 40 Children's Hospitals. MEASURES: Rate of intensive care unit admission, length of stay, resource cost. RESULTS: For the Template-matched patients, when comparing resource use at the lower 12.5-percentile and upper 87.5-percentile of hospitals, we found: intensive care unit utilization was 111% higher (6.6% vs. 13.9%, P<0.001); hospital length of stay was 25% higher (2.4 vs. 3.0 d/admission, P<0.001); and finally, total cost per patient varied by 47% ($6856 vs. $10,047, P<0.001). Furthermore, some hospitals, compared with their peers, were more efficient with low-risk patients and less efficient with high-risk patients, whereas other hospitals displayed the opposite pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals treating similar patients with CCCs admitted for similar medical diagnoses, varied greatly in resource utilization. Template Matching can aid chief quality officers benchmarking their hospitals to peer institutions and can help determine types of their patients having the most aberrant outcomes, facilitating quality initiatives to target these patients.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Survival by Socioeconomic Status Despite Medicare and Medicaid Insurance.

Policy Points Patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience poorer survival rates after diagnosis of breast cancer, even when enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the difference in survival is due to more advanced cancer on presentation and the general poor health of lower SES patients, while only a very small fraction of the SES disparity is due to differences in cancer treatment. Even when comparing only low- versus not-low-SES whites (without confounding by race) the survival disparity between disparate white SES populations is very large and is associated with lower use of preventive care, despite having insurance. CONTEXT: Disparities in breast cancer survival by socioeconomic status (SES) exist despite the "safety net" programs Medicare and Medicaid. What is less clear is the extent to which SES disparities affect various racial and ethnic groups and whether causes differ across populations. METHODS: We conducted a tapered matching study comparing 1,890 low-SES (LSES) non-Hispanic white, 1,824 black, and 723 Hispanic white women to 60,307 not-low-SES (NLSES) non-Hispanic white women, all in Medicare and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1992 and 2010 in 17 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions. LSES Medicare patients were Medicaid dual-eligible and resided in neighborhoods with both high poverty and low education. NLSES Medicare patients had none of these factors. MEASUREMENTS: 5-year and median survival. FINDINGS: LSES non-Hispanic white patients were diagnosed with more stage IV disease (6.6% vs 3.6%; p < 0.0001), larger tumors (24.6 mm vs 20.2 mm; p < 0.0001), and more chronic diseases such as diabetes (37.8% vs 19.0%; p < 0.0001) than NLSES non-Hispanic white patients. Disparity in 5-year survival (NLSES - LSES) was 13.7% (p < 0.0001) when matched for age, year, and SEER site (a 42-month difference in median survival). Additionally, matching 55 presentation factors, including stage, reduced the disparity to 4.9% (p = 0.0012), but further matching on treatments yielded little further change in disparity: 4.6% (p = 0.0014). Survival disparities among LSES blacks and Hispanics, also versus NLSES whites, were significantly associated with presentation factors, though black patients also displayed disparities related to initial treatment. Before being diagnosed, all LSES populations used significantly less preventive care services than matched NLSES controls. CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare, SES disparities in breast cancer survival were large (even among non-Hispanic whites) and predominantly related to differences of presentation characteristics at diagnosis rather than differences in treatment. Preventive care was less frequent in LSES patients, which may help explain disparities at presentation.