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.

System-Level Health-Care Integration and the Costs of Cancer Care Across the Disease Continuum.

PURPOSE: Policy reforms in the Affordable Care Act encourage health care integration to improve quality and lower costs. We examined the association between system-level integration and longitudinal costs of cancer care. METHODS: We used linked SEER-Medicare data to identify patients age 66 to 99 years diagnosed with prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, breast, or ovarian cancer from 2007 to 2012. We attributed each patient to one or more phases of care (ie, initial, continuing, and end of life) according to time from diagnosis until death or end of study interval. For each phase, we aggregated all claims with the primary cancer diagnosis and identified patients treated in an integrated delivery network (IDN), as defined by the Becker Hospital Review list of the top 100 most integrated health delivery systems. We then determined if care provided in an IDN was associated with decreased payments across cancers and for each individual cancer by phase and across phases. RESULTS: We identified 428,300 patients diagnosed with one of 10 common cancers. Overall, there were no differences in phase-based payments between IDNs and non-IDNs. Average adjusted annual payments by phase for IDN versus non-IDNs were as follows: initial, $14,194 versus $14,421, respectively ( P = .672); continuing, $2,051 versus $2,099 ( P = .566); and end of life, $16,257 versus $16,232 ( P = .948). However, in select cancers, we observed lower payments in IDNs. For bladder cancer, payments at the end of life were lower for IDNs ($11,041 v $12,331; P = .008). Of the four cancers with the lowest 5-year survival rates (ie, pancreatic, lung, esophageal, and liver), average expenditures during the initial and continuing-care phases were lower for patients with liver cancer treated in IDNs. CONCLUSION: For patients with one of 10 common malignancies, treatment in an IDN generally is not associated with lower costs during any phase of cancer care.

Episode-based Payment Variation for Urologic Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate payment variation for 3 common urologic cancer surgeries and evaluate the potential for applying bundled payment programs to these procedures. METHODS: Using 2008-2011 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, we identified all beneficiaries aged greater than 65 years who underwent cystectomy, prostatectomy, or nephrectomy for cancer. Total episode payments were determined by aggregating hospital, professional, and post-acute care claims from the index surgical hospitalization through 90 days post discharge. Total episode payments were then compared to examine hospital level-variation within each procedure type and the specific payment components (ie, index hospitalization, professional, readmission, and post-acute care) driving spending variation. RESULTS: Ninety-day episodes of care were identified for 1849 cystectomies, 8770 prostatectomies, and 4304 nephrectomies. We observed wide variation in mean episode payments for all 3 conditions (cystectomy mean $35,102: range $24,112-$57,238, prostatectomy mean $10,803: range $8,816-$17,877, nephrectomy mean $17,475: range $11,681-$26,711). Majority of payment variation was attributable to index hospitalization and post-acute care for cystectomy and nephrectomy and professional payments for prostatectomy. The most expensive hospitals by procedure each demonstrated a unique opportunity for spending reduction due to individual differences in component payment patterns between hospitals. CONCLUSION: Ninety-day episode payments for urologic cancer surgery vary widely across hospitals in the United States. The key drivers of this payment variation differ for individual procedures and hospitals. Accordingly, hospitals will need individualized data and clinical re-design strategies to succeed with implementation of episode-based payment models for urologic cancer care.

Association Between Patient Satisfaction and Short-Term Outcomes After Major Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether patient satisfaction, as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, is associated with short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first used national Medicare claims to identify patients who underwent a major extirpative cancer surgery from 2011 to 2013. Next, we used Hospital Compare data to assign the HCAHPS score to the hospital where the patient underwent surgery. We then performed univariate statistical analyses and fit multilevel logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between excellent patient satisfaction and short-term cancer surgery outcomes for all surgery types combined and then by each individual surgery type. RESULTS: We identified 373,692 patients who underwent major cancer surgery for one of nine cancers at 2617 hospitals. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, hospitals with higher proportions of patients reporting excellent satisfaction had lower complication rates (p < 0.001), readmissions (p < 0.001), mortality (p < 0.001), and prolonged length of stay (p < 0.001) than hospitals with lower proportions of satisfied patients, but with modest differences. This finding held true broadly across individual cancer types for complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay, but less so for readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-wide excellent patient satisfaction scores are associated with short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery overall, but are modest in magnitude.

Understanding the relationship between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare star rating, surgical case volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. METHODS: National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes. RESULTS: This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P < .001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Utilization and Outcomes of Inpatient Surgery at Safety-Net Hospitals.

Funding changes enacted with health care reform may compromise care and outcomes for vulnerable populations undergoing surgery in safety-net hospitals (SNHs). We performed a retrospective cohort study of surgical patients from 2007 through 2011. We examined the distribution of surgical procedures for SNHs (quartile of hospitals with the highest proportion of Medicaid plus self-pay discharges) vs. non-SNHs (lowest quartile). We fit multivariable models to compare in-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs at SNHs vs. non-SNHs. More gynecologic (C-section 10.6% of all procedures at SNH vs. 5.8% non-SNH, p < .001) and fewer orthopedic procedures (joint replacement 4.4% vs. 9.9%, spinal fusion 4.3% vs. 7.1%, p < .001) are performed at SNHs. Across nearly all procedures studied, adjusted inpatient mortality and prolonged LOS were higher at SNHs, while costs remained similar. Further reductions in funding as a consequence of health care reform may threaten access and exacerbate existing health disparities.

Early impact of Medicare accountable care organizations on cancer surgery outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were established to improve care and outcomes for beneficiaries requiring highly coordinated, complex care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between hospital ACO participation and the outcomes of major surgical oncology procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were undergoing a major surgical resection for colorectal, bladder, esophageal, kidney, liver, ovarian, pancreatic, lung, or prostate cancer from 2011 through 2013. A difference-in-differences analysis was implemented to compare the postimplementation period (January 2013 through December 2013) with the baseline period (January 2011 through December 2012) to assess the impact of hospital ACO participation on 30-day mortality, complications, readmissions, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Among 384,519 patients undergoing major cancer surgery at 106 ACO hospitals and 2561 control hospitals, this study found a 30-day mortality rate of 3.4%, a readmission rate of 12.5%, a complication rate of 43.8%, and a prolonged LOS rate of 10.0% in control hospitals and similar rates in ACO hospitals. Secular trends were noted, with reductions in perioperative adverse events in control hospitals between the baseline and postimplementation periods: mortality (percentage-point reduction, 0.1%; P = .19), readmissions (percentage-point reduction, 0.4%; P = .001), complications (percentage-point reduction, 1.0%; P < .001), and prolonged LOS (percentage-point reduction, 1.1%; P < .001). After accounting for these secular trends, this study identified no significant effect of hospital participation in an ACO on the frequency of perioperative outcomes (difference-in-differences estimator P values, .24-.72). CONCLUSIONS: Early hospital participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO program was not associated with greater reductions in adverse perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing major cancer surgery in comparison with control hospitals. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2739-2746. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Urologist Participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).

OBJECTIVE: To understand the current role of urologists in Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and the organizational characteristics of ACOs with participating urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 2012-2013 Medicare data and the National Provider Identifier Database, we classified each urologist in the U.S. and Puerto Rico as either an MSSP ACO participant or nonparticipating provider. We then examined the distribution of ACO-participating urologists across the U.S. and among the first 220 MSSP ACOs. We also compared the characteristics of ACOs with and without participating urologists. RESULTS: Among 11,084 identified urologists, 1118 (10%) were MSSP ACO participants. ACO-participating urologists practiced more frequently in the Northeast and Midwest (P < .001), and were more commonly female (10% vs 8%, P = .003). At an organizational level, only 110 (50%) of the initial MSSP ACOs included at least one urologist; among this group, the number of participating urologists ranged from 1 to 55. ACOs with one or more participating urologist were larger organizations, with respect to both the number of assigned beneficiaries and the number of providers per 1000 beneficiaries (P < .001 for each comparison). The patient populations served by ACOs with and without urologists were similar (P > .05 for each comparison). CONCLUSION: A modest percentage of urologists participate in MSSP ACOs, although many of these organizations still lack any formal involvement by urological surgeons. Without such participation, improving the coordination, quality, and cost of urologic care for Medicare beneficiaries may be more challenging.

Understanding Inpatient Cost Variation in Kidney Transplantation: Implications for Payment Reforms.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the magnitude and sources of inpatient cost variation for kidney transplantation. METHODS: We used the 2005-2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify patients who underwent kidney transplantation. We first calculated the patient-level cost of each transplantation admission and then aggregated costs to the hospital level. We fit hierarchical linear regression models to identify sources of cost variation and to estimate how much unexplained variation remained after adjusting for case-mix variables commonly found in administrative datasets. RESULTS: We identified 8866 living donor (LDRT) and 5589 deceased donor (DDRT) renal transplantations. We found that higher costs were associated with the presence of complications (LDRT, 14%; P <.001; DDRT, 24%; P <.001), plasmapheresis (LDRT, 27%; P <.001; DDRT, 27%; P <.001), dialysis (LDRT, 4%; P <.001), and prolonged length of stay (LDRT, 84%; P <.001; DDRT, 82%; P <.001). Even after case-mix adjustment, a considerable amount of unexplained cost variation remained between transplant centers (DDRT, 52%; LDRT, 66%). CONCLUSION: Although significant inpatient cost variation is present across transplant centers, much of the cost variation for kidney transplantation is not explained by commonly used risk-adjustment variables in administrative datasets. These findings suggest that although there is an opportunity to achieve savings through payment reforms for kidney transplantation, policymakers should seek alternative sources of information (eg, clinical registry data) to delineate sources of warranted and unwarranted cost variation.

Understanding pre-enrollment surgical outcomes for hospitals participating in Medicare Accountable Care Organizations.

BACKGROUND: To anticipate the effects of accountable care organizations (ACOs) on surgical care, we examined pre-enrollment utilization, outcomes, and costs of inpatient surgery among hospitals currently enrolled in Medicare ACOs vs nonenrolling facilities. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2007 to 2011), we compared patient and hospital characteristics, distributions of surgical specialty care, and the most common inpatient surgeries performed between ACO-enrolling and nonenrolling hospitals before implementation of Medicare ACOs. We used multivariable regression to compare pre-enrollment inpatient mortality, length of stay (LOS), and costs. RESULTS: Hospitals now participating in Medicare ACO programs were more frequently nonprofit (P < .001) and teaching institutions (P = .01) that performed more specialty procedures (P < .001). We observed no clinically meaningful pre-enrollment differences for inpatient mortality, prolonged length of stay, or costs for procedures performed at ACO-enrolling vs nonenrolling hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare ACO hospitals had pre-enrollment outcomes that were similar to nonparticipating facilities. Future studies will determine whether ACO participation yields differential changes in surgical quality or costs.

Utilization and Outcomes of Inpatient Urological Care at Safety Net Hospitals.

PURPOSE: Because proposed funding cuts in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may impact care for urological patients at safety net hospitals, we examined the use, outcomes and costs of inpatient urological surgery at safety net vs nonsafety net facilities prior to health care reform. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent inpatient urological surgeries from 2007 through 2011. We defined the safety net burden of each hospital based on the proportion of Medicaid and self-pay discharges. We examined the distribution of urological procedures performed and compared in-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay and costs in the highest quartile of burden (safety net) vs the lowest quartile (nonsafety net). RESULTS: The distribution of urological procedures differed by safety net status with less benign prostate surgery (9.1% safety net vs 11.4% nonsafety net) and major cancer surgery (26.9% vs 34.3%), and more reconstructive surgery (8.1% vs 5.5%) at safety net facilities (p <0.001). Higher mortality at safety net hospitals was seen for nephrectomy (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.15-2.45) and transurethral resection of the prostate (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.22-3.87). Patients in safety net hospitals demonstrated greater prolonged length of stay after endoscopic stone surgery (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.41). Costs were similar across procedures except for radical prostatectomy and cystectomy. For these procedures the average admission was more expensive at nonsafety net facilities (prostatectomy $11,457 vs $9,610 and cystectomy $27,875 vs $24,048, each p <0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in funding to safety net hospitals with health care reform could adversely impact access to care for patients with a broad range of urological conditions, potentially exacerbating existing disparities for vulnerable populations served by these facilities.

Improvement in clinical TNM staging documentation within a prostate cancer quality improvement collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a feedback and educational intervention to increase documentation of clinical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage among urologists in a statewide quality improvement collaborative. METHODS: The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) is a consortium of urology practices that aims to improve the quality and cost-efficiency of prostate cancer care. In pilot data collection activities, trained abstractors recorded medical record documentation of clinical TNM stage by participating urologists. We compared levels of TNM stage documentation in 12 MUSIC practices at baseline and after performance feedback and a collaborative-wide educational intervention. We examined patient and practice characteristics associated with documentation of TNM stage. RESULTS: We accrued 491 and 581 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer during the baseline and postfeedback phases of data collection, respectively. At baseline, 58% of patients had clinical TNM staging in the medical record, ranging from 19% to 96% across 12 practices (P <.05). After the intervention, documentation improved to 79% of patients overall, with 7 individual practices achieving significant improvements (all P <.05). The greatest improvements in documentation occurred among patients treated in smaller practices (ie, 1-4 urologists). CONCLUSION: After collaborative review of staging criteria and feedback of baseline performance, urologists in MUSIC practices dramatically improved documentation of clinical TNM stage. This finding underscores the behavioral change possible with the collaborative quality improvement model and ensures the necessary risk stratification data for our ongoing efforts to improve care.

Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined variation in active surveillance use in Medicare eligible men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) and Medicare data we identified 49,192 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 through 2007. Of 7,347 patients who did not receive treatment (ie expectant management) within 12 months of diagnosis we assessed the prevalence of active surveillance (ie repeat prostate biopsy and prostate specific antigen measurement) vs watchful waiting across health care markets. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations of active surveillance with patient demographics, cancer severity and health care market characteristics. RESULTS: During the study interval use of active surveillance vs watchful waiting increased significantly in patients treated expectantly from 9.7% in 2004 to 15.3% in 2007 (p <0.001). Active surveillance was less common in older patients, those with high risk tumors and those with more comorbidities (each p <0.001). Patients who were white and had higher socioeconomic status were more likely to receive active surveillance (each p <0.05). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics significant differences in the predicted probability of active surveillance persisted across health care markets (range 2.4% to 30.1%). No significant variation in active surveillance use was associated with specific health care market characteristics, including intensity of end of life care, Medicare reimbursement or provider density. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been relatively uncommon in Medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer. Its use relative to watchful waiting varies based on patient demographics, tumor severity and geographic location.

Population level assessment of hospital based outcomes following laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy during the adoption of minimally invasive surgery.

PURPOSE: The comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy remain incompletely defined. Therefore, we used population based data to examine resource use and short-term outcomes among patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic vs open partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data we identified patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy from 2000 through 2007. We then used Medicare claims to identify several postoperative outcomes including intensive care unit care, length of stay, rehospitalizations, operative mortality and postoperative complications. We fit multivariate logistic regression models to estimate the association between each outcome and surgical approach (ie laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs open partial nephrectomy), adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 651 (28%) and 1,670 (72%) patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy, respectively. Compared to those who underwent open partial nephrectomy, patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a 34% lower probability of requiring intensive care unit time (20.0% vs 30.2%, p <0.001) and shorter median length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p <0.001), with no differences observed in the likelihood of rehospitalization or operative mortality. While the frequency of postoperative complications was similar (35.5% vs 36.1%, p = 0.829), patients treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy had a nearly twofold greater probability of genitourinary complications and postoperative hemorrhage (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At a population level the patients with kidney cancer treated with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy experienced a shorter and less intense hospitalization, supporting the benefits of laparoscopy. However, the greater likelihood of procedure related complications highlights the need for continued efforts aimed at ensuring the safe adoption and application of this advanced surgical technique.

Utilization and outcomes of inpatient surgical care at critical access hospitals in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: There is a growing interest in the quality and cost of care provided at Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), a predominant source of care for many rural populations in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate utilization, outcomes, and costs of inpatient surgery performed at CAHs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing inpatient surgery from 2005 through 2009 at CAHs or non-CAHs was performed using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and American Hospital Association. EXPOSURE: The CAH status of the admitting hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, prolonged length of stay, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: Among the 1283 CAHs and 3612 non-CAHs reporting to the American Hospital Association, 34.8% and 36.4%, respectively, had at least 1 year of data in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. General surgical, gynecologic, and orthopedic procedures composed 95.8% of inpatient cases at CAHs vs 77.3% at non-CAHs (P < .001). For 8 common procedures examined (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, colorectal cancer resection, cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, knee replacement, hip replacement, and hip fracture repair), mortality was equivalent between CAHs and non-CAHs (P > .05 for all), with the exception that Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hip fracture repair in CAHs had a higher risk of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87). However, despite shorter hospital stays (P ≤ .001 for 4 procedures), costs at CAHs were 9.9% to 30.1% higher (P < .001 for all 8 procedures). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In-hospital mortality for common low-risk procedures is indistinguishable between CAHs and non-CAHs. Although our findings suggest the potential for cost savings, changes in payment policy for CAHs could diminish access to essential surgical care for rural populations.

Anticipating the effects of accountable care organizations for inpatient surgery.

IMPORTANCE: Much of the enthusiasm for accountable care organizations is fueled by evidence that integrated delivery systems (IDSs) perform better on measures of quality and cost in the ambulatory care setting; however, the benefits of this model are less clear for complex hospital-based care. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether existing IDSs are associated with improved quality and lower costs for episodes of inpatient surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We used national Medicare data (January 1, 2005, through November 30, 2007) to compare the quality and cost of inpatient surgery among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, hip replacement, back surgery, or colectomy in IDS-affiliated hospitals compared with those treated in a matched group of non-IDS-affiliated centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative mortality, postoperative complications, readmissions, and total and component surgical episode costs. RESULTS: Patients treated in IDS hospitals differed according to several characteristics, including race, admission acuity, and comorbidity. For each of the 4 procedures, adjusted rates for operative mortality, complications, and readmissions were similar for patients treated in IDS-affiliated compared with non-IDS-affiliated hospitals, with the exception that those treated in IDS-affiliated hospitals had fewer readmissions after colectomy (12.6% vs 13.5%, P = .03). Adjusted total episode payments for hip replacement were 4% lower in IDS-affiliated hospitals (P < .001), with this difference explained mainly by lower expenditures for postdischarge care. Episode payments differed by 1% or less for the remaining procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of the IDSs observed for ambulatory care may not extend to inpatient surgery. Thus, improvements in the quality and cost-efficiency of hospital-based care may require adjuncts to current ACO programs.

Hospitalization trends after prostate and bladder surgery: implications of potential payment reforms.

PURPOSE: Hospital stays have decreased for patients undergoing surgery for urological cancer. However, there are concerns that patients are being discharged from the hospital prematurely. We examined associations between hospital stay and short-term outcomes for a low risk procedure (prostatectomy) and high risk procedure (cystectomy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data from 1992 through 2005 to identify 46,781 prostatectomy and 9,035 cystectomy cases. We assessed our main outcome (adjusted likelihood of hospital readmission within 30 days) using a logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included mortality rates and discharge disposition. RESULTS: In comparing patients from 1992 to 1993, to 2004 to 2005, hospital stay decreased approximately 3 days for both surgeries (relative decrease of more than 50% for prostatectomy and 21% for cystectomy). Hospital readmission rates were 4.5% and 25.2% for prostatectomy and cystectomy, respectively, and remained stable with time. Skilled nursing/intermediate care use was stable for patients who underwent prostatectomy (approximately 1%), but increased from 8.2% (95% CI 5.4-11.4) to 18.9% (95% CI 16.8-21.3) for those treated with cystectomy. Use of home care increased from 8.1% (95% CI 7.3-9.0) to 11.1% (95% CI 10.1-12.1) and from 34.2% (95% CI 29.7-38.7) to 47.5% (95% CI 44.5-50.1) for prostatectomy and cystectomy cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in hospital stay were more dramatic for patients who underwent prostatectomy and were associated with stable short-term outcomes. Conversely, smaller reductions in hospitalization for patients undergoing cystectomy were met with substantial increases in the use of post-acute care. Going forward, close surveillance of how imminent policy reforms affect patterns and quality of care will be necessary.

Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer.

CONTEXT: Although partial nephrectomy is the preferred treatment for many patients with early-stage kidney cancer, recent clinical trial data, which demonstrate better survival for patients treated with radical nephrectomy, have generated new uncertainty regarding the comparative effectiveness of these treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term survival after partial vs radical nephrectomy among a population-based patient cohort whose treatment reflects contemporary surgical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with clinical stage T1a kidney cancer treated with partial or radical nephrectomy from 1992 through 2007. Using an instrumental variable approach to account for measured and unmeasured differences between treatment groups, we fit a 2-stage residual inclusion model to estimate the treatment effect of partial nephrectomy on long-term survival. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall and kidney cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 7138 Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage kidney cancer, we identified 1925 patients (27.0%) treated with partial nephrectomy and 5213 patients (73.0%) treated with radical nephrectomy. During a median follow-up of 62 months, 487 (25.3%) and 2164 (41.5%) patients died following partial or radical nephrectomy, respectively. Kidney cancer was the cause of death for 37 patients (1.9%) treated with partial nephrectomy, and 222 patients (4.3%) treated with radical nephrectomy. Patients treated with partial nephrectomy had a significantly lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85). This corresponded with a predicted survival increase with partial nephrectomy of 5.6 (95% CI, 1.9-9.3), 11.8 (95% CI, 3.9-19.7), and 15.5 (95% CI, 5.0-26.0) percentage points at 2, 5, and 8 years posttreatment (P < .001). No difference was noted in kidney cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.19-3.49). CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage kidney cancer who were candidates for either surgery, treatment with partial rather than radical nephrectomy was associated with improved survival.

Use of restaging bladder tumor resection for bladder cancer among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and effectiveness of restaging bladder tumor resection using population-based data. Restaging bladder tumor resection improves staging accuracy and the response to intravesical therapy. However, its use outside of a tertiary care setting, and its subsequent clinical implications, are unknown. METHODS: We identified 62 016 patients diagnosed with bladder cancer between 1992 and 2005 using SEER-Medicare data. Restaging bladder tumor resection was defined as 2 or more resections occurring within 60 days of diagnosis. Using multivariable models, we assessed the relationship between the use of restaging resection and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Restaging resection was performed in only 3064 (4.9%) of newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients, but was most common among those with high grade (7.7% vs 2.0% in low grade, P < .001) and stage (8.8% in T2 vs 2.8% in Ta/Tis, P < .001) disease. Compared to patients with muscle-invasive cancers who did not undergo restaging at diagnosis, restaging resection was associated with improved 5-year cancer-specific mortality among pathologically staged patients (20.4% vs 28.0%, P = .02), while clinically staged patients trended toward improved mortality (28.2% vs 31.9%, P = .07). CONCLUSION: Restaging transurethral resection for bladder cancer is relatively uncommon and associated with improved survival among patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. Greater use of restaging warrants further investigation as a simple means of improving outcomes among patients suspected of having muscle invasive disease.